PA 

6393 

S8 

M8 

1893 

MAIN 


ON  THE  EIGHT  LINES 
USUALLY  PREFIXED  TO  HORAT.  SERM.  I.  10 


BY 

WILFRED   P.  MUSTARD,  PH.D. 


(Reprinted  from  Colorado  College  Studies,  Vol.  IV.) 


COLORADO  SPRINGS: 

The  Gazette  Printing  Company. 

1893. 


am 


ON   THE   EIGHT   LINES   USUALLY   PREFIXED   TO 
HORAT.  SERM.  L  10/ 


By  ^^ZyiLRRED    F».    MUSTARD. 


The  eight  lines  usually  prefixed  to  Horace,  Satires, 
I.  10  are  found  only  in  some  of  the  mss.  of  Keller  and 
Holder's  third  class.  They  are  unknown  to  the  mss.  of 
classes  I  and  II,  and  to  z  and  the  whole  Rtt  family  of 
class  III .  They  were  apparently  unknown  to  the  Scholiasts, 
who  would  surely  have  considered  them  obscure  enough 
to  require  some  explanation.  Mavortius  did  -not  know 
them.  In  FA'  and  some  other  mss.  they  appear  as  the  be- 
ginning of  satire  10,  while  in  A^np  they  form  a  continua- 
tion of  satire  9. 

On  this  external  evidence  almost  all  the  editors  have 
condemned  the  lines  as  an  interpolation,  and  either 
marked  them  off  by  brackets  or  omitted  them  altogether.^ 
They  appear  as  part  of  the  text  in  Zarotto's  Milan  edition, 
in  the  first  and  second  Aldine  editions,  and  in  the  Paris 
edition  by  R.  Stephanus.  But  even  in  the  fifteenth  cen- 
tury Landino  rejected  them,  and  most  of  the  older  editors 
followed  his  example.  Some  editors  have  separated  them 
from  the  text  but  prefixed  them  to  the  satire,  others  have 
printed  them  separately  in  their  commentaries,  while 
many  have  omitted  them  altogether.  Thus  they  do  not 
appear  in  ten  of  the  Venice  editions  (for  the  omission  in 
the  first  eight  Landino  was  responsible),  in  Ben tley's, Wake- 
field's and  some  twenty  others.  Lambin  ascribes  them  to 
some  'semidoctus  nebulo'  who  wished  to  explain  the  open- 

^  This  paper  offers  no  new  theory  as  to  the  meaning,  authorship  or  date  of 
these  obscure  lines.  It  is  merely  an  attempt  to  collect  and  arrange  the  various 
opinions  that  have  been  expressed  with  regard  to  them. 

2 1  owe  the  greater  part  of  the  facts  presented  in  this  and  the  following  para- 
graph to  Kirchner's  edition  of  the  first  book  of  the  Satires  (Leipzig,  1854),  p.  142. 


•   -•' 


•  •••/••     • 

•  •     •  •«  •  •     • 


2  Colorado  College  Studies. 

ing  word  'nempe.'  Jacobus  Cruquius  barely  mentions 
them  in  his  commentary  as  the  words  of  a  'simius  Hora- 
tianus.'     Bentley  omits  them  without  mention. 

Others  have  defended  the  lines.  Gesner  restored  them. 
Valart  thought  they  were  the  work  of  Horace.  Heindorf, 
followed  by  Bothe  and  others,  thought  that  Horace  had 
written  them  as  an  introduction  to  this  satire  but  after- 
wards threw  them  aside  and  commenced  in  a  different 
tone;  or  that  they  were  an  unfinished  introduction  to  some 
satire  discovered  after  his  death  and,  with  the  addition  of 
the  expletive  words  'ut  redeam  illuc,'  prefixed  to  Sat.  I. 
10,  on  account  of  the  similarity  of  subject.  Jo.  Val. 
Francke  proposed  to  insert  them  after  verse  51  of  this 
satire,  Reisig  after  verse  71.  Morgenstern  held  that  Horace 
had  written  the  lines,  but  afterwards  rejected  them. 
Schmid^  virtually  said  that  they  were  the  work  of  Horace. 
Apitz*  ascribed  them  to  Horace,  but  bracketed  verse  8. 
Urlichs^  said  that  the  old  question  is  really  one  of  sub- 
jective feeling  as  to  what  is  worthy  or  unworthy  of  Horace. 
He  thought  the  lines  genuine,  though  he  admitted  their 
obscurity  and  considered  the  text  corrupt.  Doderlein 
found  nothing  seriously  objectionable  in  the  lines,  and 
was  quite  certain  of  their  genuineness.  He  maintained 
that  the  fact  that  they  are  not  found  in  many  mss. 
does  not  prove  them  spurious;  this  might_be  the  result 
of  chance,  or  even  of  a  recension  by  Horace  himself. 
W.  Teuffel's^  verdict  was  similar  to  Morgenstern's. 

The  text  of  these  obscure  lines  is  very  corrupt.  The 
mss.  of  most  importance  for  determining  the  original 
reading  are  FA'/5'.  F,  the  principal  representative  of  the 
large  third  class,  is  the  assumed  common  source  of  the 
'  gemelli  Parisini'  <p  7974  and  4'  7971 ;  )'  the  archetype  of 
a  similar  pair,  X  Leidensis  and  1  Parisinus;  /5'  that  of 
i?  Bernensis  and  f  Franckeranus  (now  Leeiiwardensis) . 

sPWfoi.  XI.  pp.  54-59. 

*  Coniectan.  in  Q.  H.  F.  Satiras  (Berlin 

^  Rhein.  Mus.  XL  p.  602. 

oiJ/iem.  Mus.  XXX.  p.  621. 


HoEAT.  Seem.  I.  10  (1-8).  3 

These  mss.  agree  very  closely,  and  establish  the  text  as 
follows : 

Lucili,  quam  sis  mendosus,  teste  Catone 

defensore  tuo  pervincam,  qui  male  factos 

emendare  parat  versus,  hoc  lenius  ille 

quo  melior  vir  est,  longe  subtilior  illo 

qui  multum  puer  et  loris  et  funibus  udis 

exoratus,  ut  esset  opem  qui  ferre  poetis 

antiquis  posset  contra  fastidia  nostra, 

grammaticorum  equitum  doctissimus.    ut  redeam  illuc, 

"  How  full  of  faults  you  are,  Lucilius,  I  shall  clearly 
prove  from  the  testimony  of  Cato,  your  champion,  who  is 
preparing  to  revise  your  ill  made  verses.  He  will  deal 
more  gently  with  them  inasmuch  as  he  is  a  better  man,  of 
far  finer  tastes,  than  the  scholar  who  in  his  boyhood  felt 
the  vigorous  persuasion  of  moistened  thong  and  rope,  in 
order  that  there  might  be  one  who  could  lend  a  helping 
hand  to  the  poets  of  old  against  the  carping  criticism  of 
our  day,  the  cleverest  of  aristocratic  grammarians.  To  re- 
turn to  that  point," 


NOTES    ON    THE    TEXT. 

Vs.  1.  'quod  sis'  (codd.pleriqueap.Lamh.).  Some  of 
the  abbreviated  forms  of  'quam'  and  'quod'  in  minuscular 
writing  are  very  much  alike.''  Unless  very  carefully  written 
these  words  might  be  readily  confused,  and  so  'quod'  may 
have  appeared  here.  When  once  it  had  appeared  in  a  ms. 
it  might  easily  be  retained  because  of  its  use  in  late  Latin 
to  introduce  substantival  clauses  after  'verba  dicendi  et 
sentiendi.^ 

Vs.  2.  'convincam'  {ed.Landini  ex  mss.)  for  'pervin- 
cam,' which  as  the  more  difficult  reading  should  be  re- 
tained. One  ms.  {Kirchneri  cod.  L  in  Dresd.  III.)  gives 
'devincam.'     Peerlkamp  suggested  'prope  vincam.' 

Vs.  4.  'quo  melior  vir  est.'  This  is  the  reading  of  the 
most   important   mss.     The   false   quantity   in   'vir'   has 

^Chassant,  Dictionnaire  des  abreviations,  latines  et  francaises,  Paris,  1876,  p.  77. 
sDraeger,  Hist.  Syntax  der  latein.  SprachCy  Vol.  XL,  p.  229. 


A[\€\f\G  I 


4  Colorado  College  Studies. 

given  rise  to  many  attempts  at  improving  the  line.  Thus 
one  ms.  has  'quo  vir  est  melior,'  another  'quo  est  vir 
melior,' while  several  read  'est  quo  vir  melior.'  The  last 
arrangement  of  the  words  gives  undue  emphasis  to  'est.' 
Lambin  conjectured  'quo  melior  is  est,'  and  the  Martinius 
of  Cruquius,  the  only  one  of  his  mss.  that  contained 
these  eight  lines,  had  'quo  melior  hie  est.'  But  there 
are  pronouns  enough  already  in  '  ille  .  .  .  illo.'  Several 
mss.  had  'quo  melior  vir  et  est  longe  subtilior.'  Meineke 
defended  this  hyperbaton  for  'quo  melior  vir  est  et  longe 
subtilior,'  appealing  to  Sat.  I.  3,  63;  I.  4,  68;  I.  9,  51. 
This,  however,  gives  the  impossible  combination  'quo 
longe  subtilior.'  Heindorf  found  'adest'  in  Berol.  5  and 
accepted  it. 

Vs.  5.  'puer  et.'  The  obscurity  of  this  line  has  given 
rise  to  several  emendations:  'puer  est'  (Gesner);  'pueros' 
(Urlichs);  'puerum  est'  (Reisig);  'nuper'  (Kutgers); 
'fuerit'  (Praedicow,  who  also  read  'quem'  and  'exhorta- 
tus');  'pueros'  (Nipperdey®).  W.  TeuffeP"  suggested  'me 
olim'  for  'multum'  and  defended  'olim'  by  a  reference  to 
Sat.  I.  4,  105. 

Vs.  6.  '  exoratus '  is  confirmed  by  the  number  and  im- 
portance of  the  mss.  in  which  it  is  found.  The  other 
mss.  readings  'exortatus'  and  'exhortatus'  are  only  pos- 
sible with  '  puerum '  in  the  preceding  line,  for  there  is  very 
little  authority  for  the  active  form  or  passive  meaning  of 
'exhortor.'  In  any  case  the  omission  of  'est'  is  a  diffi- 
culty, and  hence,  apparently,  Peerlkamp's  conjecture  '  est 
hortatus.'  The  conjectures  'exornatus'  (Glareanus)  and 
'est  ornatus'  (Yalart)  are  obviously  suggested  by  such  ex- 
pressions as  '  adeo  exornatum  dabo,  adeo  depexum,  ut  dum 
vivat,  meminerit  mei.'"  Horkel  apparently  wanted  a  good 
strong  word  after  'loris  et  funibus,'  and  settled  upon  'ex- 
coriatus,'  which  Meineke  and  Schtitz  approve. 

9  Opusc.  493. 

lOiJ/iein.  ilftts.  XXX.  p.  622. 

"Ter.  Heawf.  5,*!,  77. 


HoRAT.  Serm.  I.  10  (1-8).  5 

Vss.  4-6.   In  the  Rheinisches  Museum  fur  Philologie, 
XLI.  pp.  552-556,  F.  Marx  offered   the  following  emen- 

^a^i^^*  -hoc  lenius  ille, 

quo  melior  versu  est,  longe  eubtilior  illo 
qui  multum  puerum  et  loris  et  funibus  ussit 
exoratus, — 

His  explanation  and  defense  of  these  changes  are  given 
below. 


COMMENTAKY. 

In  the  very  first  verse  there  is  evidence  of  the  spurious 
nature  of  this  fragment,  for  (1)  the  promise  'quam  sis 
mendosus,  teste  Catone,  pervincam'  is  not  fulfilled,  and  (2) 
the  sentiment  is  unlike  Horace.  In  the  tenth  satire  he 
defends  the  opinion  he  had  pronounced  upon  Lucilius  in 
Sat.  I.  4,  but  with  full  recognition  of  his  peculiar  merits, 
and  elsewhere  he  very  modestly  claims  for  himself  a  lower 
place  than  for  his  predecessor.^^  "To  Lucilius  he  pays  also 
the  sincerer  tribute  of  frequent  imitation.  He  made  him 
his  model,  in  regard  both  to  form  and  substance,  in  his 
satires;  and  even  in  his  epistles  he  still  acknowledges  the 
guidance  of  his  earliest  master."  ^^ 

'Teste  Catone.'  The  Cato  here  referred  to  is  the  gram- 
marian Valerius  Cato,  who  is  mentioned  in  Suetonius^*  as 
'poetam  simul  grammaticumque  notissimum,'  'summum 
grammaticum  optimum  poetam,' '  Cato  grammaticus,  latina 
Siren.'  Another  section  of  Suetonius  tells  of  Cato's  in- 
terest in  the  works  of  Lucilius,  'quas  {sc.  Lucili  saturas) 
legisse  se  apud  Archelaum  Pompeius  Lenaeus,  apud  Philo- 
comum  Valerius  Cato  praedicant.'^^ 

Those  who  see  in  the  person  here  compared  with  Cato 
the  'plagosum  Orbilium'  of  Horace,  Epp.  II.  1,  70,  assume 
that  the  writer  of  these  lines  knew  that  epistle,  which  is 

12 Sat.  II.  1,  29,  'me  pedibus  delectat  claudere  verba,  Lucili  ritu,  nostrum 
melioris  utroque.'  Ibid.  74,  'quicquid  sum  ego,  quamvis  infra  Lucili  censum 
ingeniumque.' 

"Sellar,  The  Romayi  Poets  of  the  Republic,  3ded.,  1889,  p.  249. 

1*  De  Gramm.  4  and  11. 

^'"De  Gramm.  2. 


6  Colorado  College  Studies. 

assigned  by  Vahlen  to  B,  C.  14.  Suetonius,  de  gramm.  11, 
says  of  Cato,  'vixit  ad  extremam  senectutem,'  so  that 
'  emendare  parat '  might  be  literally  true  if  the  lines  were 
genuine.  Marx  claims  that  the  words  need  mean  only 
'emendare  studet,  emendationi  operam  dat,  emendaturus 
est,'  comparing  Juv.  8,  130,  'per  oppida  curvis  unguibus 
ire  parat  nummos  raptura  Calaeno.'  Moreover,  he  main- 
tains, the  author  of  these  lines  pronounces  upon  the  whole 
recension  of  Cato,  implying  that  it  was  already  finished,  so 
that  they  were  not  necessarily  composed  in  the  time  of 
Horace. 

Keller  objects  even  to  the  sentiment  of  '  teste  Catone ' 
that  (1)  Horace  required  no  one's  authority  to  confirm  his 
opinion  of  Lucilius,  and  (2),  in  view  of  Epp.  I.  19,  39-40, 
it  is  not  likely  that  he  would  have  appealed  to  the  author- 
ity of  any  grammarian.^*'  This  he  regards  as  another  evi- 
dence of  interpolation. 

Vs.  3.  Some  editors  punctuate  with  a  period  after 
'versus,'  and  another  after  'doctissimus,'  verse  8.  With 
this  punctuation  'hoc'  would  most  naturally  be  taken  as 
accusative  after  a  finite  verb  understood.  It  seems  better 
to  point  with  commas  and  supply  such  a  participle  as 
'facturus,'  taking  'hoc'  as  the  ablative  corresponding  to 
'quo.' 

Vs.  4  is  certainly  corrupt. 

(a)  It  is  strange  that  'melior'  should  be  given  as  a 
reason  for  'lenius.'  It  must  have  been  this  difficulty  that 
gave  rise  to  the  variant  'lenior.'  Cato's  moral  character  is 
not  at  all  concerned.  All  that  is  required  of  him  is  ability 
to  correct  metrical  errors  and  halting  sense  in  Lucilius' 
verses,  defects  which  had  probably  been  multiplied  even 
in  his  day  by  mistakes  of  the  copyists.  Nor  does  'sub- 
tilior'  suit  'lenius,'  for  Lucilius'  verses  are  'male  facti.' 

(6)  There  is  a  false  quantity  in  'vir.'" 

^^'non  ego,  nobilium  scriptorum  auditor  et  ultor, 
grammaticas  ambire  tribus  et  pulpita  dignor.' 
17 The  Italian' dialects  show  that  the  'i'  in  'vir'  was  once  long  {veir) :  cp. 
Buecheler,  Lex.  Ital.  p.  30. 


HoEAT.  Serm.  I.  10  (1-8).  7 

( c )  '  Longe  subtilior'  is  irregular.  "  Cicero  and  the  older 
writers  did  not  use  '  longe '  to  strengthen  the  comparative, 
though  it  appears  in  poets  of  a  later  age  and  in  the  more 
recent  historians."  ^^  Wolflinn^^  says  that  Horace  kept 
strictly  to  the  old  rule  of  'multo'  with  the  comparative, 
using  'longe'  only  in  one  anomalous  case.  He  would 
therefore  not  have  written  'longe'  here  instead  of  its  met- 
rical equivalent  'multo,'  and  its  use  is  one  proof  of  the 
spurious  nature  of  these  eight  lines. 

(d)  ' Hie '  and  '  illo,'  ending  consecutive  lines  and  refer- 
ring to  different  persons,  are  strange  and  confusing  as  to 
meaning.  Suetonius  rejected  a  certain  prose  epistle  which 
purported  to  have  been  written  by  Horace,  '  epistula  etiam 
obscura,  quo  vitio  minime  tenebatur'."**  He  would  scarcely 
have  found  the  transparency  of  genuineness  in  verses  8-4. 
To  avoid  the  difficulties  in  'lenius'  and  'ille  .  .  .  illo'  Schtitz 
would  strike  out  the  two  half- lines  and  read  'emendare 
parat  versus  subtilior  illo." 

Vs.  5.  If  the  genuineness  of  verse  4  may  be  questioned 
on  the  ground  of  obscurity,  still  more  objectionable  is 
verse  5.  It  seems  impossible  to  explain  this  and  the  fol- 
lowing lines  in  their  best  attested  form.  For  example, 
who  is  the  person  compared  with  Cato? 

(a)  Because  Horace  says,  Epp.  II.  1,  70,  that  he  studied 
the  poems  of  Livius  Andronicus  in  his  boyhood  under  the 
'plagosus  Orbilius,'  many  editors  have  made  'qui  puer  .  .  . 
exoratus'  refer  to  the  poet  himself.  It  may  be  doubted 
whether  Horace  would  have  thus  spoken  of  himself,  but  a 
greater  difficulty  awaits  us  inverse  8,  'equitum  doctissimus.' 
These  words  most  naturally  refer  to  the  same  person  as 
'qui  .  .  .  exoratus,'  and  Horace  was  not  an  'eques.' 

(6)  Reisig,  who  reads  'puerum  .  .  .  exhortatus,'  makes 
'puerum'  refer  to  Horace,  'qui'  to  Orbilius.  But  to  this 
Schtitz  objects  that  '  puerum '  would  be  too  indefinite  with- 
out 'istum'  or  'ilium.' 

18  Hand,  Tursellinus,  III.  p.  551. 
1^  Comparation,  p.  40. 
^^  Horatii  Poetae  Vita. 


8  Colorado  College  Studies. 

Schmid'^  also  read  'qui  .  .  .  puerum  .  .  .  exhortatus,'  re- 
ferring '  qui '  to  Orbilius. 

W.Teuffel"^  refers  'puerum'  to  Scribonius  Aphrodisius, 
'qui'  to  Orbilius.  To  this  also  Schtitz  objects  that  Scri- 
bonius was  'Orbili  servus  atque  discipulus,'^^  and  that 
'puerum'  would  not  imply  all  this.  He  might  more  rea- 
sonably have  repeated  his  objection  to  Eeisig's  explanation, 
that  the  unmodified  'puerum'  is  too  indefinite. 

These  three  interpretations  are  obviously  based  upon 
the  mention  of  the  'plagosus  Orbilius,'  Epp.  II.  1,  70,  and 
they  receive  some  support  from  the  words  '  grammaticorum 
equitum  doctissimus,'  in  verse  8.  These  words  naturally 
refer  to  the  same  person  as  the  clause  'qui  . . .  puerum  .  . . 
exhortatus,'  and  Orbilius  might,  at  least  ironically,  be 
called  a  knight.^*  There  is,  however,  no  evidence  that  he 
revised  Lucilius'  'ill  made  verses,'  or  that  he  paid  special 
attention  to  them. 

(c)  J.  Becker^^  thought  that  either  Florus  or  Titius  is 
meant.  Very  little  is  known  of  these  men  except  from 
Horace,  Epp.  I.  3,  and  II.  2.  Horace  merely  says  that 
Florus  has  ability  enough  to  win  distinction  in  oratory, 
in  law,  or  in  poetry .""^  Porphyrio  says  'hie  Florus  [scriba] 
fuit  satirarum  scriptor,  cuius  sunt  electae  ex  Ennio, 
Lucilio,  Varrone.'  Kiessling  hints  that  the  old  commen- 
tator inferred  all  this  from  Epp.  I.  3,  21,  'quae  circum- 
volitas  agilis  thyma  ? '  Whether  right  or  not,  Porphyrio 
apparently  means  that  Florus  rewrote  some  of  the  poems 
of  these  earlier  authors,  adapting  them  for  the  readers  of 
his  own  day.  Even  if  this  be  accepted,  it  is  hard  to  sup- 
pose that  Horace  would  refer  to  Florus  in  the  language  of 
these  eight  lines,  and  yet  address  him  fifteen  years  later 
as  a  young  man  who  had  not  written  much."'  Of  Titius 
still  less  is  known.    Horace  asks  Florus  whether  he  is  still 

sipWioL  XL  pp.  54-59. 

^Rhein.  Mus.  XXX.  p.  622. 

23Sueton.  De  Grarnm.  19. 

2*Sueton.  De  Gramin.  9,  '  deindo  in  Macedonia  corniculo,  mox  equo  meruit.' 

25p/iiioi.  IV.  p.  490. 

26  Epp.  I.  3,  2:3-25. 

STEpp.  L3,22-25. 


HoRAT.  Seem.  I.  10  (1-8).  9 

writing  odes  or  trying  his  hand  at  tragedy,  'Titius  Romana 
brevi  ven turns  in  ora.'^*  All  that  the  scholiasts  have  to  say 
about  him  may  very  well  have  been  derived  from  the  text. 
Thus  Becier's  theory  seems  to  have  very  little  support, 
except  Porphyrio's  statement  that  Florus  was  a  writer  of 
satires,  and  the  fact  that  Titius  and  Florus  were  both 
noblemen  of  a  literary  turn,  and  might  be  called  '  equitum 
doctissimi.'  That  either  of  them  could  be  called  '  gram- 
maticorum  equitum  doctissimus'  is  by  no  means  apparent. 

'  Loris  et  funibus  udis.'  The  mention  of  'lora'  and 
'funes'  suggests  a  rather  savage  treatment  of  the  un- 
known youth  referred  to  in  this  line.  References  to  the 
use  of  'funes'  for  the  purpose  of  punishment  are  not  very 
numerous.  Horace,  however,  has  '  Hibericis  peruste  funi- 
bus  latus,'"^  on  which  Orelli  remarks  that  'funes'  made 
from  the  Spanish  broom  were  used  for  flogging  the  ma- 
rines. No  very  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  word  'udis' 
has  ever  been  offered.  It  is  not  clear  that  savage  masters 
sometimes  used  a  moistened  lash,  or  that  a  lash  so  treated 
would  cause  the  victim  more  pain.  Marx*"  quotes  Petro- 
nius,  134  B,  'lorum  in  aqua,'  as  inconsistent  with  such  ex- 
planations. It  is  unfortunate  that  the  wisdom  of  the 
scholiasts  was  not  brought  to  bear  upon  this  word;  their 
comments  would  certainly  have  been  interesting. 

Vss.  3-6.  The  changes  in  these  three  lines  suggested  by 
F.  Marx  have  been  mentioned  on  page  35.  First  he  empha- 
sizes the  importance  of  the  word '  exoratus '  in  the  interpreta- 
tion of  this  fragment,  a  word  which  is  preserved  by  all  the 
best  mss.  of  the  third  class.  This  word,  he  says,  may  here 
be  equivalent  to  'though  vainly  implored  for  mercy,'  like 
'exorata'  in  Juvenal,  6,  415,  '  vicinos  humiles  rapere  et  con- 
cidere  loris  exorata  solet.'*^  Then  reading  'puerum'  for 
'puer,'^^  as  many  earlier  scholars  have  done,  he  looks  about 

28Epp.  I.  3,9. 

"^Epod.  4,  3. 

^Rhein.  Mus.  XLI.  p.  552. 

31 A  similar  use  of  '  exorare,'  which  he  might  have  quoted,  is  found  in  Hor. 
Epp.  1. 1,  6,  'latet  abditus  agro,  ne  populum  extrema  toties  exoret  harena.'  With 
this  meaning  of  '  exoret,'  '  toties  '  may  be  taken  literally. 

22  An  easy  change  paleographically. 


10  Colorado  College  Studies. 

for  a  finite  verb  of  '  striking'  or  '  cutting.'  This,  he  thinks, 
is  lurking  in  'udis,'  which  is  certainly  very  weak  and  has 
never  been  well  explained.  The  verb  is  probably  '  ussit.' 
It  should  be  noticed  that  the  word  'udis'  appeals  Hn  ras.  /?,' 
and  that  very  often  in  mss.  the  termination  '-it'  shows  a 
medial  'd.'  ^^  For  similar  uses  of  the  verb  '  urere '  cp.  Horace, 
Epp.  I.  16,  47,  'loris  non  ureris';  Epod.  4,  3,  'Hibericis 
peruste  funibus';  Sat.  II.  7,  58,  'virgis  uri.'  The  conjec- 
ture 'quo  melior  versu  est'  in  the  fourth  line  he  puts  for- 
ward with  less  confidence. 

Marx  then  refers  his  new  reading,  'qui  multum 
puerum  .  .  .  ussit  exoratus,'  to  Vettius  Philocomus,  Cato's 
teacher,  who  was  one  of  the  first  to  revise  the  work  of 
Lucilius.^*  This  man,  as  being  'Lucilii  familiaris,'  and 
possibly  th«  same  person  who  was  censured  by  the  poet 
'propter  sermonem  parum  urbanum,'^^  may  have  been  like 
Aelius  Stilo  and  Servius  Clodius,  a  Roman  knight.  His 
name,  however,  suggests  a  Greek  origin,  and  in  the  absence 
of  any  special  statement  as  to  his  rank,  it  is  not  easy  to 
assume  that  he  was  an  'eques.' 

Vs.  8.  The  words  'grammaticorum  equitum  doctissi- 
mus'  are  very  difficult  both  in  reference  and  in  meaning. 
They  would  most  naturally  refer  to  the  same  person  as 
'qui  .  .  .  exoratus,'  but  they  can  hardly  apply  to  the  per- 
son who  is  so  unfavorably  compared  with  Cato.  Schtitz 
claims  that  such  irony  as  this  is  quite  impossible  here,  and 
failing  to  find  any  other  person  to  whom  the  epithet  could 
easily  be  referred,  would  strike  out  the  words  altogether. 
Apitz'^^  bracketed  the  whole  of  verse  8. 

Kirchner  and  Doderlein  would  refer  'doctissimus'  to 
the  same  person  as  'melior'  and  'subtilior,'  ^.  e.,  to  Cato. 

33  Examples  of  this  interchange  in  Horatian  mss.  are  cited  by  Keller  and 
Holder,  Epilegom.  III.  p.  853.  A  similar  list  is  given  in  Mayor's  The  Latin  Hepta- 
teuch, p.  251. 

34Sueton.  De  Gramm.  2. 

35  Quint.  Inst.  Or.  I.  5,  56,  taceo  de  tuscis  et  sabinis  et  praenestinis  quoque : 
nam  et  eorum  sermone  utentem  Vettium  (Vectium?)  Lucilius  insectatur,  quem- 
admodum  Pollio  reprehendit  in  Livio  Patavinitatem,  licet  omnia  italica  pro 
romanis  habeam. 

36  Coniectan.  in  Q.  H.  F.  Satiras,  1856,  p.  86. 


HoRAT.  Serm.  I.  10  (1-8).  11 

The  long  separation  is  decidedly  against  this,  and,  besides, 
Cato  could  hardly  be  called  an  'eques.'  According  to 
Suetonius,  De  Gramm.,  11,  his  social  position  was  doubtful 
in  his  manhood  and  he  probably  never  had  a  knight's  in- 
come in  his  old  age.  To  meet  this  last  difficulty  Kirchner 
proposed  to  read  'equidem'  for  'equitum.' 

The  reading  'doctissime'  has  been  proposed,  but  this 
is  obviously  suggested  by  the  knowledge  that  Lucilius 
was  a  knight,  and  the  objectionable  interval  is  only  in- 
creased. 

The  words  'grammaticorum  equitum'  are  especially 
obscure.  As  they  stand  they  would  seem  to  imply  a  class 
of  knights  who  were  grammarians,  or  of  grammarians  who 
were  knights,^^  but  such  guilds  are  quite  unknown. 

Doderlein  punctuated  with  a  comma  after 'grammati- 
corum.' As  has  been  mentioned  above,  he  considered 
these  eight  verses  the  genuine  introduction  to  Sat.  I.  10, 
so  that  in  trying  to  avoid  one  difficulty  he  created  another 
almost  as  serious,  by  making  Horace  class  himself  among 
the  grammarians — 'fastidia  nostra  grammaticorum.'^® 

Badius  Ascensis  thought  Maecenas  was  the  'eques'; 
another  old  scholar  thought  of  Laberius.  Orelli  came  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  writer  of  these  verses,  whoever  he 
was,  knew  no  more  who  the  'eques'  was  than  we  do. 

'Ut  redeam  illuc'  Cp.  Sat.  1. 1,  108,  'illuc,  unde  abii, 
redeo,'  and  Nepos,  Dion.,  4:,  'sed  illuc  revertor';  Agesil.  4, 
'sed  illuc  redeamus.' 

It  is  hard  to  find  anything  in  the  preceding  lines  to 
which  'illuc'  can  well  be  referred.  As  Krtiger^^  remarks,  it 
cannot  refer  to  the  promised  proof  that  Lucilius  is  full  of 
faults,  for  this  promise  is  not  fulfilled,  or  to  the  proof  of 
his  faults  on  Cato's  evidence,  for  Horace  does  not  return  to 
this  at  all.  Voss  and  Francke  made  'illuc'  refer  in  a  gen- 
eral way  to  Sat.  I.  4,  or  its  subject. 

37  Like  Juvenal,  VIII.  49,  nobilis  indocti, '  a  nobleman  who  is  an  ignoramus.' 

38  This  is  contrary  to  the  sentiment  of  Epp.  I.  19,  40,  '  non  ego  .  .  .  grammati- 
cas  ambire  tribus  et  pulpita  dignor.' 

'^Drei  Satirenfuer  den  Schulzioeck  erklaert,  1850,  p.  17. 


12  CoLOEADO  College  Studies. 

It  seems  almost  certain  that  these  three  words  were  in- 
serted on  account  of  the  abrupt  opening,  'Nempe  etc.'*" 
The  preceding  lines  were  probably  written  with  the  text 
of  Sat.  I.  10  on  account  of  the  similarity  of  subject,  and 
some  later  scribe,  mistaking  them  for  the  introduction  to 
this  satire,  would  add  the  words  '  ut  redeam  illuc '  to  serve 
as  a  bridge  to  the  lively  opening  ^  Nempe  incomposito  dixi 
etc.,'  though,  as  Schiitz  remarks,  they  would  serve  better  to 
connect  the  verses  with  verse  2,  'quis  tam  Lucili  fautor 
inepte  est?'  The  long  introduction  to  Sat.  I.  7  (followed  by 
*ad  Regem  redeo,'  vs.  9)  may  have  suggested  the  expletive 
words  that  were  felt  necessary.  Keller  and  Holder  cite  as 
similar  interpolations  the  four  lines  once  prefixed  to  the 
Aeneid  and  the  ten  lines  at  the  beginning  of  Hesiod's 
Works  and  Days.  It  is  incontestable,  they  add,  that  the 
satire  is  complete  without  these  eight  verses,  and  that 
nothing  is  wanting  at  the  beginning.  On  the  contrary, 
the  fact  that  Persius,  the  deliberate  imitator  of  Horace, 
begins  one  of  his  satires  (the  third)  with  'nempe'  speaks 
for  the  genuineness  of  the  introductory  'nempe'  here. 


The  external  evidence  that  these  eight  verses  are  an 
interpolation  to  Sat.  I.  10  is  given  in  the  first  paragraph 
of  this  paper;  a  careful  examination  of  them  can  only  re- 
sult in  the  conclusion  that  they  are  not  the  work  of  Horace 
at  all.  They  have  been  assigned  to  different  writers  and 
to  different  periods. 

Kirchner  ascribed  them  to  Furius  Bibaculus  (circ.  700 
A.  U.  C),  arguing  from  Sueton.  DeGramm.ll,  that  Valerius 
Cato,  if  still  alive  when  Horace  wrote  this  satire  (A.U.  C. 
720),  must  have  been  over  seventy  years  old,  too  old  to  be 
contemplating  a  revision  of  Lucilius.  This  argument  was 
soon  afterwards  disposed  of  by  Schmid,"  who  proved  from 
the/ same  section  of  Suetonius  that  Cato  could  not  have 
been  more  than  sixty-two  years  old  in  A.  U.  C.  720,  and 

<o '  Soil,  ut  transitus  ad  Horatium  sit.'    Baehrens,  Fragm.  Poet.  Roman.,  1886,  p.  329. 
4iPWioZ.  XL  p.  54. 


HoKAT.  Serm.  I.  10  (1-8).  13 

was  probably  alive  several  years  later.*"  O.  Fr.  Hermann 
ascribed  them  to  Fannius.  Lucian  Mtlller,  in  his  edition 
of  Lucilius,  1872,  says  they  were  undoubtedly  composed  in 
the  time  of  Horace,  though  their  authorship  is  uncertain. 
These  three  scholars  insisted  on  taking  'emendare  parat' 
literally. 

Schtitz  says  that  the  writer  of  the  fifth  verse  appar- 
ently knew  not  only  Epod.4,  3,  'Hibericis  peruste  funibus' 
and  4,  11,  'sectus  flagellis  .  .  .  praeconis  ad  fastidium,'  but 
also  Epp.  II.  1,  70,  'plagosum  .  .  .  Orbilium,  etc'  This 
epistle  is  assigned  by  Vahlen  to  B.  C.  14,  so  that  these 
verses  could  not  have  been  written  by  Fannius  or  by 
Furius  Bibaculus.  He  would  put  the  composition  of  the 
fragment  as  late  at  least  as  the  beginning  of  the  second 
century  A.  D.  Just  as  Tacitus*^  says  that  there  are  men 
in  his  day  who  prefer  Lucilius  to  Horace,  and  Quintilian** 
insists  that  Horace's  criticism  is  unfair,  so  the  unknown 
writer  of  these  lines  objects  to  Horace's  treatment  of  his 
own  model,  appealing  to  the  authority  of  Oato,  who  was  of 
course  not  satisfied  with  the  work  of  Lucilius  as  he  found 
it,  but  still  thought  it  worth  revising.*^  The  third  verse, 
Schtitz  maintains,  is  not  necessarily  older  than  Sueton. 
De  Gramm.  2.  The  writer  may  have  known  Suetonius' 
account  of  Cato  and  yet  made  him  an  editor  not  merely  a 
student  of  Oato  in  his  younger  days,  either  by  mistake  or 
because  he  knew  or  thought  he  knew  better. 

Orelli  remarks  that  the  passage  has  '  antiquum  colorem,' 
and  assigns  it  to  the  time  of  Fronto.  Keller  would  put  it 
as  late  as  Ausonius  (circ.  350  A.  D.),  hinting  at  Tetra- 
dius  who  is  addressed  in  Auson.  Ep.  15,  9,  as  rivalling 
Lucilius.*® 

F.  Marx,  whose  beautiful  emendation  of  these  lines  is 
often  referred  to  in  this  paper,  says  that  they  are  impor- 
tant for  the  history  of  grammar  at  Rome  and  for  our 

■*2 '  vixit  ad  extremam  senectutem.' 
*^Dial.  de  Or  at.  23. 
^Imt.  Or.  X.  1,93. 

^  It  would  be  hard  to  show  that  Horace's  estimate  of  Lucilius  was  any  lower 
than  this. 

^ '  rudes  Camenas  qui  Suessae  praevenis  aevoque  cedis,  non  stilo.' 


14  CoLOEADO  College  Studies. 

knowledge  of  the  fate  of  Lucilius'  poems.  The  whole  pass- 
age, he  insists,  suggests  the  philologist  and  reviewer,  who 
prefers  Cato's  edition  of  Lucilius  to  his  master's  earlier 
one.  There  is  a  vast  difference  between  the  points  of  view 
of  Horace  and  the  author  of  these  interpolated  lines:  the 
former  speaks  of  Lucilius  himself  and  his  works,  the  latter 
of  editors  and  editions. 

If  it  once  be  assumed  that  the  words  '  emendare  parat ' 
do  not  necessarily  imply  that  these  lines  were  written  in 
Cato's  lifetime,  it  is  hard  to  say  how  late  they  may  have 
been  composed.  Whatever  their  age,  it  is  quite  impossible 
to  name  their  author. 

The  fragment — and  it  is  only  a  fragment,  for  the  promise 
in  the  first  verse  is  not  fulfilled — seems  to  have  been  trans- 
ferred to  this  satire  from  some  source  rather  than  composed 
as  an  introduction  to  it,  to  explain  and  complete  it.  Apart 
from  the  fact  that  the  general  sentiment  of  the  lines  (so 
far  as  this  can  be  discovered)  is  not  in  accord  with  that  of 
the  satire  to  which  they  are  unnecessarily  prefixed,  it  is 
hard  to  see  what  Horace  had  to  do  with  Cato's  alleged  re- 
vision of  Lucilius  or.  with  the  savage  treatment  of  the  un- 
fortunate youth  referred  to  in  verse  5.  Keller  and  Holder 
say  that  the  'Urhandschrift'  of  their  third  class  of  mss. 
was  older  than  Priscian,  and  so  also  this  interpolation, 
adding,  however,  that  while  Priscian  quotes  the  spurious 
lines  prefixed  to  the  Aeneid,  these  eight  verses  are  not 
mentioned  by  any  of  the  ancient  commentators. 


••  •  •  • 


Colorado  College  Scientific  Society, 

COLORADO  SPRINGS,  COLORADO. 


The  following  is  a  complete  list  of  the  papers  read  at 
the  monthly  meetings  of  the  Society  during  the  past 
year.  The  fourth  volume  of  Colorado  College  Studies 
contains  the  three  designated  below  by  asterisks,  while 
others  will  be  published  elsewhere. 

October  18,  1892: 

Folk  Etymology  in  Latin,        -        -        -    W.  P.  Mustard. 

November  18,  1892 : 

A  Construction  for  the  Imaginary  Points 

and  Branches  of  Plane  Curves,  -        -    F.  H.  Loud. 

December  16,  1892: 

*State  Bank  Notes, W.  M.  Hall. 

January  21,  1898 : 

Friction  Tests  in  Water-pipes  and  Fire- 
hose,     -    W.  Strieby. 

February  24,  1893: 

Prayer  in  a  Universe  of  Law,  -        -        -    E.  S.  Parsons. 

March  24,  1893 : 

Acidimetry, D.  J.  Carnegie. 

*0n  the  Eight  Lines  Usually  Prefixed  to 

Horat.  Serm.  I.  10,      -        -        -        -    W.  P.  Mustard. 

April  28,  1893 : 

Kant's  Theory  of  Space  and  Time,  -        -    Marion  McG.  Noyes. 

On  the  Multiplication  of  Semi-convergent 

Series, Florian  Cajori. 

May  19,1893: 

The  Essential  Element  of  Religion,  -        -  F.  R.  Hastings. 

Multipolar  Dynamos,        -        -.        -        -  Florian  Cajori. 

*The  Circular  Locus, F.  H.  Loud. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


2l0ct'62fe 


REC'D  LI 


OCT  22 1962 


.iv..--^''V1'f 


JAN  25  1965 


LD  21A-50m-3,'62 

i'C7097sl0)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  Californi 

Berkeley 


crc  . 


O7  ? .  . 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  LIBRARY 


5': 


Cf^^  ■ 


-y- 


W'\ 


l^V^^ 


t' 


iV 


1 


'^-^  ^\T 


X ?  ^^  >^ 


r::f-v>::^:.^.:. 


